JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Petitioner calls in question legality of the order of assessment passed u/s 12(4) of the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 (in short, "the Act") relating to assessment year 1996-97. An extra demand of Rs. 1,30,93,178 has been raised. 2. According to the petitioner, the principles laid down by the apex Court in Builders Association of India v. Union of India [1989] 73 STC 370, Gannon Dunkerley & Co. v. State of Rajasthan [1993] 88 STC 204 and Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited v. Union of India [1996] 102 STC 373 have not been kept in view, and by presumptious conclusions deductions have been granted for labour and service charges. It is stated that the Sales Tax Officer has calculated the allowable percentage at 31.21 without indicating any basis therefor. The law relating to levy of sales tax on works contract has been laid down in those cases. The conclusions on the factual aspects have been drawn without keeping in view the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions. The learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that factual controversies are involved, and since statutory remedy is available, the petitioner should avail it and the writ application is not to be entertained. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for four different years assessments have been completed raising huge demands and petitioner has filed appeals, but they have been kept in cold storage. It is apprehended that for the subsequent periods also similar demand may be raised. The demands have been raised with oblique motives to collect tax, and to deprive petitioner from getting refund of tax collected by way of deduction at source from bills. High pitched demands are being raised and the first appellate authorities by and large are acting as mere post offices in affirming the assessments. Ultimately assessees are being dragged into unnecessary litigation. The case at hand is no exception. 4. Reading of the order of assessment shows that factual controversies are involved. Normally the High Court does not exercise jurisdiction by entertaining petitions under Article 226 against an order of assessment, when the statute under which tax is sought to be levied provides a remedy by way of appeal or other proceeding to a party aggrieved and thereby by-pass the statutory authority. Normally the High Court does not exercise jurisdiction by entertaining petitions under Article 226 against an order of assessment, when the statute under which tax is sought to be levied provides a remedy by way of appeal or other proceeding to a party aggrieved and thereby by-pass the statutory authority. The writs are issued in proper cases to fill in gaps where no legal remedy or no adequate legal remedy is available. They are meant to supplement not to supersede legal remedies. It has, however, to be borne in mind that the rule of exhaustion of statutory remedy is a self-imposed restriction, and is not an invariable one. Even when an alternative remedy is available to the party, the High Court can interfere under Article 226 if extraordinary circumstances are made out showing either lack of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice. Where factual disputes are involved normally writ applications are not to be entertained. If finding of the assessing authority on questions of fact are challenged as being opposed to material on record, the appropriate remedy is filing an appeal and not a writ application. 5. As the petitioner can avail statutory remedy by filing appeal, we do not entertain the writ application. In case petitioner files appeal along with an application for condonation of delay by March 23, 1998, the appeal shall be admitted on condonation of delay. It is stated by the learned counsel for Revenue that the demand raised is in the neighbourhood of Rs. 1.3 crores, and the petitioner should be directed to pay the amount. Normally we would have required the petitioner to move the appellate authority in the matter of stay. But considering the submissions of learned counsel for parties that we may deal with the question of stay, we direct that on the petitioner depositing Rs. 30 (thirty) lakhs by March 25, 1998 realisation of the balance shall remain stayed till disposal of the first appeal. We further direct that all the appeals pending in relation to previous years, and the appeal to be filed shall be taken up for hearing on April 28, 1998 by the appellate authority. The petitioner shall appear on that date before the appellate authority without any further notice. We further direct that all the appeals pending in relation to previous years, and the appeal to be filed shall be taken up for hearing on April 28, 1998 by the appellate authority. The petitioner shall appear on that date before the appellate authority without any further notice. Said authority shall do well to dispose of the appeals by June 15, 1998 by taking note of all the relevant aspects, and law laid down by the apex Court. 6. Quod ultra, a general grievance, as indicated above is about high pitched assessments. General grievance is that the attempt is to collect tax by any means. Revenue authorities contend that with a view to catch in the net tax dodgers and evaders, assessments are done strictly in accordance with law bona fide. It has to be borne in mind that an assessee may be bad enough, but there is no reason why the assessing authorities must be worse and must not conform to the requirements of law in making a best judgment assessment. Observance of the rule of law is of vital importance and is compulsory not only for those who are to obey the law, but also for those who are to enforce the same. The Sales Tax Department has been created to realise revenue and not to cause harassment to the people in general. The job of the assessing officer and first appellate authority is not an easy one. One hand they have a duty to see that there is just assessment and there is no leakage of revenue. In that sense they are counsel of the Revenue. On the other hand, their job is similar to that of a Judge who has to take a decision. The functions have on many occasions conflicting aspects. Ultimately it has to be borne in mind by the assessing officers that they are watch-dogs of revenue and not blood hounds. Tax evasion is reprehensible, it is social injustice by the evader to his fellow citizens. Arbitrary or excessive assessment is equally reprehensible ; it is social injustice by the tax collector to the people. Tax evasion aggravates arbitrary taxation, and arbitrary taxation aggravates tax evasion. To break the vicious circle, while there must be every attempt to check evasion, there must equally be every attempt to stop whimsical taxation. The radiating potencies of taxes go far beyond mere raising of revenue. Tax evasion aggravates arbitrary taxation, and arbitrary taxation aggravates tax evasion. To break the vicious circle, while there must be every attempt to check evasion, there must equally be every attempt to stop whimsical taxation. The radiating potencies of taxes go far beyond mere raising of revenue. They propel tendencies which can obstruct effort, deflect enterprise and constrict growth. Taxes are the life-blood of any Government ; but it cannot be overlooked that such blood is taken from the arteries of the tax-payer and therefore, the transaction is to be accomplished in accordance with principles of justice and good conscience. Taxing authorities would do well to keep these aspects in mind while adjudicating any matter. Adam Smith, in his classic, The Wealth of Nations, observed that four main objectives should be borne in mind by the State in levying taxes. First, equity. Secondly, the convenience of the tax-payer. Thirdly economy, and fourthly, certainty and clarity. Arbitrary assessments not basked by sound principles of law and correct interpretation of factual and legal issues lead to disastrous results. Collection of tax may be made in respect of such assessments to boost up revenue collection of one financial year, presenting a rosy picture. But ultimately when refunds are required to be made, the picture becomes more dismal. 7. The original assessment order be returned to the petitioner as attested xerox copies are available. A copy of the order be handed over to the learned Senior Standing Counsel (C.T.), for compliance. The writ application is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of the order on proper application shall be granted to petitioner. S.C. Datta, J. 8. I agree.